[JoeT777]

I said He tore down beliefs of the time for instance Matt 5:43 (Golden Rule) He says "You have been taught, but..." How many times did He condemn the religious leaders of the time, do you think that the way they were acting was common? At this time in history the Jews weren't always as faithful as they were at other times. Christ would have gone against many of the social norms and customs. For instance, look at the good Samaritan. The Samaritans and Jews didn't exactly get along, Christ didn't care what the people thought, He just did what is right and (as you said) upheld the law, which would make Him a clash with many of the beliefs of the time.

First let me explain, my objection wasn't so much your conclusions, rather the objection was directed to the precept that Christ brought down Mosaic Law. At least that's how I took your post.

If correct, your examples seem to prove the point. It was the Pharisees who were the hypocrites, misleading and misrepresenting the Moses' Law. All these attributes, i.e. the Golden Rule, being good Samaritans, etc. were already part of Judaism. He didn't do 'what was just right' he expanded the Law to include everyman to the status of neighbor and instituted a new regenerative laver, baptism.

JoeT

[arcura]

Very interesting posts.
Thank you.
Please keep up the good work back and forth.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[kp2171]

I think its fair to say Christ put greater value on being Just than following laws about cleanliness, for ex... its not a stretch to find those who believed, but didn't act as believers.

is it really reaching to say he challenged beliefs? Maybe its semantics... maybe you are saying he didn't tear beliefs down as much as reveal the true meanings?

[kp2171]

First let me explain, my objection wasn’t so much your conclusions, rather the objection was directed to the precept that Christ brought down Mosaic Law. At least that’s how I took your post.
JoeT

Never mind... I agree.

[arcura]

kp2171,
Thanks for your thoughts on that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[dwashbur]

The notion that Christ tore down beliefs (presumably of Judaism, i.e. God's Kingdom)

JoeT

I didn't get that impression. I understood it to mean that he stripped away all the nonsense that had accreted onto those things, put there by a religious elite that had become quite corrupt. He said he came to fulfill the Law, not to destroy it. But he and the religious leaders of his day seemed to have very different ideas of what constituted "the Law."

[JoeT777]

i think its fair to say Christ put greater value on being Just than following laws about cleanliness, for ex... its not a stretch to find those who believed, but didnt act as believers.

is it really reaching to say he challenged beliefs? maybe its semantics... maybe you are saying he didnt tear beliefs down as much as reveal the true meanings?

Mosaic Law was, and still is, Divine Justice.

No, it wasn't reaching to say he challenged beliefs. Nevertheless, it was only those beliefs in a distortion of Mosaic Law that were challenged.

I do agree, he revealed Truth as he continues to do so. This is what was meant when I said “built-up,” that is establish.

JoeT

[JoeT777]

I didn't get that impression. I understood it to mean that he stripped away all the nonsense that had accreted onto those things, put there by a religious elite that had become quite corrupt. He said he came to fulfill the Law, not to destroy it. But he and the religious leaders of his day seemed to have very different ideas of what constituted "the Law."

I understand the Kingdom of God to be the Jewish ecclesiastical tradition, i.e. Church. This ‘Church’ wasn’t destroyed but rather given to others. Otherwise I agree.

JoeT

[TUT317]

Paraphrasing A. R. Lacey's definition; “any view appealing to reason as [the sole] source of knowledge or justification” is an extreme form of rationalism.


JoeT

Hi Joe,

From my point of view this is pretty much the standard definition of rationalism.

I can see where you are getting confused. I am sure you are thinking that an appeal to reason (as out lined in the above definition) Is the source of subjective knowledge. In other words, the source of liberalism comes from someone doing the reasoning.

In fact it is just the opposite. Rationalism is an objective theory. It has noting to do with the subjective individual. Rationalism in a general sense is a theory of universals. Rationalism CAN'T be a subjectivist theory and on that basis rationalism can't be the basis of liberalism.

I am not sure what you mean by rationalism and empiricism 'mirror' each other.

You also claim that:
'The nature of liberal truth is determined solely in the interior.'

This being the case how do you explain liberal theories such as 'objective utilitarianism'?

Regards
Tut

[arcura]

dwashbur and JoeT,
In this case I agree with both of you.
I hope you can understand how I do that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[dwashbur]

I understand the Kingdom of God to be the Jewish ecclesiastical tradition, i.e. Church. This ‘Church’ wasn’t destroyed but rather given to others. Otherwise I agree.

JoeT

In the form that God intended, I agree. I think we may be saying the same thing but talking right past each other?

[JoeT777]

In the form that God intended, I agree. I think we may be saying the same thing but talking right past each other?

"In the form..." Is this 'form' of agreement in anticipation of what I might say next … about Church?

Or should I simply agree, and be done with it?

JoeT

[dwashbur]

"In the form..." Is this ‘form’ of agreement in anticipation of what I might say next … about Church?

Or should I simply agree, and be done with it?

JoeT

Uuuuuuuuhh... I'm not sure I follow.

[TUT317]

Hi Joe,

I would like to apologize. You are not confused about rationalism.
I looked up the Catholic Encyclopedia for a definition. Your definition fits in with what is written there.

It would seem that when it comes to philosophical definitions Catholics have a 'private language'. By this I mean there is a Catholic theological understanding of what a word means and there is what modern philosophers generally understand by a word. On this basis we are talking past each other.

I think the Catholic Encyclopedia has got it roughly correct when it claims that Kant marked the end of rationalism in its early form. I would argue that it more or less marked the end of rationalism as such. By this I mean that it marked the end of rationalism as a philosophical and political force (leaving Hegel aside because we are roughly talking about the same time period).

The attempt by Encyclopedia to suggest that rationalism 'lingers on behind the scenes' only to eventually give rise to modern liberal ideas is inaccurate in my view. It is an attempt to 'grab at historical straws' in order to show that it reinvents itself as liberalism.

What is interesting about this exercise is that I got my understanding of how Catholics understand the term by exploring the net.

I think I would be right in saying that the Catholic Encyclopedia and similar documents are your main (if not your only) source of political philosophy. Perhaps you could help me out by reading wider.

There was a man who read in the morning paper there was an earthquake in China. He didn't believe it so he went down town and bought six more copes of the same paper in order to confirm the truth of the story.


Regards

Tut

[InfoJunkie4Life]

First let me explain, my objection wasn’t so much your conclusions, rather the objection was directed to the precept that Christ brought down Mosaic Law. At least that’s how I took your post.

If correct, your examples seem to prove the point. It was the Pharisees who were the hypocrites, misleading and misrepresenting the Moses’ Law. All these attributes, i.e., the Golden Rule, being good Samaritans, etc. were already part of Judaism. He didn’t do ‘what was just right’ he expanded the Law to include everyman to the status of neighbor and instituted a new regenerative laver, baptism.

Sorry, I do see how it can come across that way, especially when you read the first sentence. I'm not sure what you mean by proving the point, but I do not mean by any measure that He intended to tear down Mosaic Law. I just wished to illustrate how Christ may have clashed with the powers to be, and how that can be seen as liberal philosophies, at least at the time.

I may be wrong here, but from what I've read, the Jewish law was already applicable to those outside the Jewish nation. For instance, Job was not of Jewish genealogy (Chaldean I think).

Also:

Numbers 15:22-31

Romans 2:6-16

Romans 2:25-26

Romans 5:12-15

1 Corinthians 15:56

1 Timothy 1:8-11

The way I see it, people who have not heard the law are not punishable by it, however it still illustrates their sins. I believe it says somewhere they are judged by their own law. This doesn't make it "not sin" but rather a different sort of playing field.

As far as expanding the neighbor to everyman, He did not do, He just clarified the difference between what was being taught and what is written. No where in the OT does it say "hate your enemies" and God has commanded us over and over to love everybody as He does, not just the other Jews.

[JoeT777]

I think I would be right in saying that the Catholic Encyclopedia and similar documents are your main (if not your only) source of political philosophy. Perhaps you could help me out by reading wider.

There is a reason that I restrict my reading; it's like working on the farm. If I don't go near the pig waller during the day, it's likely the missis will let me sit at the dinner table that night – even if I don't get in it she claims she can smell it on my cloths. Likewise keeping the mind away from the waller of unholy thought allows us to go to Communion without a conflicted soul, pure of heart, worthy of His flesh that is meat and His blood that is drink, fills the intellect with Real Truth (Cf. John 6:26, 55). The blood signifies the Sacrifice, for the first born on Pasch (the time of renewal) consumed the meat signified by the blood on the door jamb. We likewise Commune in a meal which we devour with passion; it in turn assumes us, bite by bite.

And, having been lucky enough to sit at the missis' table more than once, I know not to eat junk food during the day. You need all the room you can muster for that dazzle-berry pie – it's a lot of food for thought.

If you're really interested in expanding your reading, read St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica. Start with Secunda Secundæ Partis and work backwards to Prima. You can probably do it in months; it took me years and I still don't have it down pat. But, don't think I'm going to read about the master philosophers of liberalism – too much junk food.

There was a man who read in the morning paper there was an earthquake in China. He didn't believe it so he went down town and bought six more copies of the same paper in order to confirm the truth of the story. Tut

You know, being more than 39 (If you don't ask how much more, I won't have to go to confession this week), you would have thought I heard that joke by now. That was great, Tut! I'll let you add humorist to your list of attributes. Well done.

JoeT

[TUT317]

Hi Joe,

Fair enough, each to his own. I guess the difference between us is that I am happy to read St. Thomas Aquinas' 'Summa Theologica' where as I am sure you will not
Read J.S. Mill 'On Liberty'.

I am an admirer of St. Thomas. One cannot help but be impressed by the scope and volume of his work.

It is theoretically possible for us to have a discussion on St. Thomas even though you would know much more than myself when it comes to his work. On the other hand it would be impossible for us to have a discussion on J.S. Mill.

My church does not tell me how I should vote but I guess yours does.


By the way the 'joke' about the newspaper. It wasn't intended to be a joke.


Regards

Tut

[arcura]

TUT317,
Very interesting.
The first I head of The Joke was it was told about a blue eyed blonde and it's still funny even of not meant to be a joke.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[JoeT777]

Sorry, I do see how it can come across that way, especially when you read the first sentence. I'm not sure what you mean by proving the point, but I do not mean by any measure that He intended to tear down Mosaic Law. I just wished to illustrate how Christ may have clashed with the powers to be, and how that can be seen as liberal philosophies, at least at the time.

I probably jumped to conclusions. From time to time I have a bad habit of reading things between the lines that were never there; my apologies.

I may be wrong here, but from what I've read, the Jewish law was already applicable to those outside the Jewish nation. For instance, Job was not of Jewish genealogy (Chaldean I think).
Also:
Numbers 15:22-31
Romans 2:6-16
Romans 2:25-26
Romans 5:12-15
1 Corinthians 15:56
1 Timothy 1:8-11

I think he lived in the land of ‘Hus’. Hus was the grandson on Sem. Since Job’s land was open to attach from the north by the Chaldeans and since the name Hus is associated with Arm (Cf. Gen 10:23; 22:21; 36:28) many think Job was Aramaean.

But that’s not the point, is it? Judaism has always been open to outsiders. There are initiation rites such as Tevilah (teh-VEE-luh) an Immersion in a pool (essentially this is a baptism) a ritual cleansing for spiritual purification. But, before this the convert must lean Hebrew, the Jewish religion, the Jewish laws and traditions. The initiate must observe at least one of each of the Jewish feasts and holidays. The rite of passage of course includes circumcision for males. Finally, after taking on a Jewish name, the convert is introduced to the community. So, you might say that the non-Jewish believers aren’t Jewish full fledged member of the Kingdom of God until they ‘become’ Jewish.

The way I see it, people who have not heard the law are not punishable by it, however it still illustrates their sins. I believe it says somewhere they are judged by their own law. This doesn't make it "not sin" but rather a different sort of playing field.

So you don’t believe the Decalogue (10 commandments) are binding?

As far as expanding the neighbor to everyman, He did not do, He just clarified the difference between what was being taught and what is written. Nowhere in the OT does it say "hate your enemies" and God has commanded us over and over to love everybody as He does, not just the other Jews.

I agree with you. The command to love our neighbor as ourselves is clearly part of the Old Testament. But, the Jew didn’t always see the neighbor as ‘everyman’ but merely the guy next door. This charity wasn’t to be extended exclusively to the clan, the town, the region, or to Israel, but to every man. This is what I had intended to say.

JoeT

[JoeT777]

Hi Joe,

Fair enough, each to his own. I guess the difference between us is that I am happy to read St. Thomas Aquinas' 'Summa Theologica' where as I am sure you will not
read J.S. Mill 'On Liberty'.

I am an admirer of St. Thomas. One cannot help but be impressed by the scope and volume of his work.

It is theoretically possible for us to have a discussion on St. Thomas even though you would know much more than myself when it comes to his work. On the other hand it would be impossible for us to have a discussion on J.S. Mill.

My church does not tell me how I should vote but I guess yours does.


By the way the 'joke' about the newspaper. It wasn't intended to be a joke.


Regards

Tut

My Church doesn't tell me who to vote for; rather it tells me why I should vote.


Not humor? Then you must tell us how it turned out, was his fears confirmed after the 6th paper?

JoeT